Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Steve Salmen on October 03, 2015, 08:30:03 AM
-
I'm watching the GC coverage of golf in Scotland. From time to time, they show an aerial view of the golf courses. There are 5 courses adjacent to each other if I'm not correct?
My question is this: since the Old sits in the middle of a lot of golfing land and golf holes already in existence, what is the marginal effort required, if even possible, to improve the surrounding land or holes so they're comparable to those of the Old?
It seems odd to me that there are 90 odd holes and only a select 18 in the middle gets all the attention. Why is a golf course regarded so highly surrounded by such relative mediocrity?
-
The New anywhere else would get a lot of attention, and the other courses are quite good-though at times hurt by expansion of other facilities or renovation.
I'd guess if the Old didn't exist and the New was on the Open Rota it would be as famous at least as much as Troon or several other rota courses.
To the untrained eye (or the head of the R&A) it's the Old that needs the improving ::) ::) ::)
-
Jeff,
I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.
That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could relative mediocrity become excellence?
Steve
-
Steve,
by that logic how is it possible to have one hole on a course better than any other? St. Andrews caters for a large cross section of players and so yes you need championship standard courses as in the Old, New and Jubilee courses but you also need courses for those who want to play shorter courses such as Eden, Strathtyrum or Balgove. The putting green also has an important role to fill.
If you think about it, Bandon has gone down this road with the building of the 12 hole course and large putting green.
Jon
-
Jeff,
I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.
That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could mediocrity become excellence?
Steve
I'd say if you'd play the other courses, you wouldn't think that all 18 at The Old are so far individually ahead of the rest. They all have their role, and more importantly, we are familiar with them.
I'd say you could sub in one of many holes on the other courses for 1,9, 10,18 or even a few other holes on The Old and no one who was unfamiliar with the Old and its history would think it was worse.(If you could find an educated eye who unfamiliar with The Old ;D ;D )
I'd go the other way and say with effort, good land and good work could become mediocre. ;D
-
History matters, it's how we rate one TPC over another.
-
This thread reminds me of a thought I've often had, i.e. that while great gca is indeed a craft, it is also not only an art but a kind of magic trick as well. And it's the "magic" that I can never put my finger on, and that makes all the difference between the good and the great courses of the world. With all the brilliant and seminal text books available to current practitioners on the theory and practice of golf course architecture, and with all the design schools and internship opportunities and countless examples of great golf holes/courses available and out there to be studied (and copied), and with the ability via earth-movers to shape the land to whatever necessary ends one wishes, why is not every golf course being built today a very good-to-excellent one, chock-full of engaging angles and thoughtful strategic choices and flowing and peaceful routings? I don't know the answer to that, and frankly no one here over the years has been able to provide one that makes much sense to me. So that's why I say: there must be an element of mystery and synchronicity and a near-magic at work, some alchemical process that elevates the very special courses from all the rest. (I don't mean at/only at St Andrews specifically, but in general.)
Peter
-
This thread reminds me of a thought I've often had, i.e. that while great gca is indeed a craft, it is also not only an art but a kind of magic trick as well. And it's the "magic" that I can never put my finger on, and that makes all the difference between the good and the great courses of the world. With all the brilliant and seminal text books available to current practitioners on the theory and practice of golf course architecture, and with all the design schools and internship opportunities and countless examples of great golf holes/courses available and out there to be studied (and copied), and with the ability via earth-movers to shape the land to whatever necessary ends one wishes, why is not every golf course being built today a very good-to-excellent one, chock-full of engaging angles and thoughtful strategic choices and flowing and peaceful routings? I don't know the answer to that, and frankly no one here over the years has been able to provide one that makes much sense to me. So that's why I say: there must be an element of mystery and synchronicity and a near-magic at work, some alchemical process that elevates the very special courses from all the rest. (I don't mean at/only at St Andrews specifically, but in general.)
Peter
Peter,
Am I wrong that you have played less than a handful of recognized great courses? Once you get a taste of enough great courses you will find that there is no more magic involved then what makes one pizza oven crank out a better pizza than the one next door. It only smells complicated.
-
:)
It's true, John, that I have played very few recognized (or even top quality) golf courses, and so my point above might be worth very little and/or be misguided and misinformed. But your analogy clarifies my question, i.e. if there is a pizza oven than consistently cranks out top-rated pizzas, why don't other pizza-oven makers follow suit? I mean, if they have to build a pizza-oven anyway, why not just look up the specs for the best one and replicate it?
Peter
-
Many pizza operators have duplicated specifications in another location trying to make as good a pizza as the original. They fail for the one obvious reason. Pizza is only as good as you want it to be. People don't want the new location to be as good so it never is. Great golf courses are the same, they are as great as we want them to be. Now explaining to your friends why one course or one pizza is the greatest ever is another story.
-
That's why having friends who enjoy great pizza -- all kinds of great pizza -- is way more satisfying to me than searching for (or debating which is) the greatest pizza [boring].
-
That's why having friends who enjoy great pizza -- all kinds of great pizza -- is way more satisfying to me than searching for (or debating which is) the greatest pizza [boring].
I'm up for a one hundred slice hike, who's donating?
-
:)
It's true, John, that I have played very few recognized (or even top quality) golf courses, and so my point above might be worth very little and/or be misguided and misinformed. But your analogy clarifies my question, i.e. if there is a pizza oven than consistently cranks out top-rated pizzas, why don't other pizza-oven makers follow suit? I mean, if they have to build a pizza-oven anyway, why not just look up the specs for the best one and replicate it?
Peter
Plenty of it going on
You never heard of Arthur Hills?
How'd his Dye envy work out.....
Still gotta know good from ....
and what you state is why fads are so prevalant in golf architecture, and why so few courses are actually different.
Ardfin from my limited picture viewing, seems to fit the different bill, ironically while its neighbor Islay is trying so hard to be less archaic and therefore less unique
-
I object to the word 'mediocrity' personally. Not being as good as the Old Course doesn't equal mediocre golf.
-
I object to the word 'mediocrity' personally. Not being as good as the Old Course doesn't equal mediocre golf.
There is nothing mediocre about the New. But it's not 400 years old with seven huge double greens, the R&A clubhouse, famous named bunkers and how many Open championships. I enjoy playing it but it's not the Old Course!
-
1) Great golf courses require the very best bit of land.
2) Not all duneland, even in the same vicinity, is equal.
3) Simply copying templates does NOT mean you are producing quality. I believe it was the utterly sensible Harry Colt who pointed that out.
And that's it. ;)
-
Jeff,
I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.
That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could mediocrity become excellence?
Steve
They may well all adjacent and on similar land but not on the exactly the same land. You shouldn't judge the course you are playing by what it is beside, only what you are playing. Unless you are a course snob obviously!
I like TOC but think the New is a better course for how we all play these days, The Eden is a good test and better than many from 100 yards almost every hole. Judge the course/shot not what is nearby!
-
Steve,
The idea of "improving" the surrounding areas in St Andrews to compete with the "Old Course" is ludicrous.
The golf courses at St Andrews are routed through links land that are natural alluvial lands that are quite prevalent in eastern Scotland, but also elsewhere in the UK.
I suggest you treat yourself to a trip and sample real links golf for yourself. You will see links land and appreciate it once you play it. It is truly different than anything you have probably experienced.
The best ones just are what they are with minimal intervention by mankind.
Look into Askernish on the Outer Hebridean island of South Uist for a wonderful example. Other than mowing there was little need for man's intervention to create a sublime test of golf!!!
-
If I split 10 rounds between the St. Andrews' courses, it would be...
Old: 3
New: 3
Jubilee: 3
Eden: 1
IMHO, superb quality is found throughout the property.
-
Malcolm, I merely asked a question. Had I not played 3 of the courses, I would not have brought it up. From the sky view, I think it's fair to ask how one swath of golf holes is vastly superior to the rest.
-
Steve,
why do you think it is vastly superior? Most of the top 100 courses would not be in the top 10 of your average 28 handicapper though TOC might be.
Jon
-
John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.
-
I think it's a very erudite posit. My first reaction was, "what an interesting question." Having played TOC and Jubilee I understand the query. Righteous indignation at the thought of improving land for golf, even linksland, is a pretty baseless position. Like it's never been done? And it wasn't just improving land that Steve considered, it was also holes. Is modifying holes for better golf also ludicrous?
-
John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.
Steve, but the top 100 for who? In a setting such as St. Andrews it is important that the courses cater for all standards of player and expectations.
Jon
-
John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.
Steve, but the top 100 for who? In a setting such as St. Andrews it is important that the courses cater for all standards of player and expectations.
Jon
The New is Top 100 in GB&I.
If there was no Old course and they played the Open at The New, it would be Top 10-30 in the world.
If the Old were located in Nebraska, it wouldn't be called the Old, it would be called the NLE.
Most people don't get it, some are bullied into getting it, and the rest want to change it ::) ::) ::) ;)
-
For the newbies and the oldies with deteriorating memories....
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=32398.0
-
John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.
John
Re your basic premis that the Old Course is vastly superior to the other courses I think you will find plenty of locals who will tell you it's not even the best course there let alone vastly superior. Mind you those locals have the advantage of being local and therefore don't get overawed by the romance and history of the place every time they play.
Niall
-
Niall
Local or not, to suggest The New (or is it the Joob?) is in the same league as TOC is far fetched.
Steve
Are you suggesting that the undulations of TOC should be replicated on the other courses? The undulations are what basically separate the courses...nearly all the cool stuff at TOC is off the back of undulations.
Ciao
-
As I've mentioned before, I'd like to see a St Andrews 18-hole composite course using the 1st, 17th and 18th from the Old (and maybe the 11th and 16th as well) with the remaining holes coming from the New, Eden and Jubilee.
atb
-
Niall
Local or not, to suggest The New (or is it the Joob?) is in the same league as TOC is far fetched.
Not really. Locals just aren't affected by the romance and history the same way visitors are and see it for what it is which is a very good golf course. That some of them, not all of them obviously, think the New or Jubilee or perhaps both are better than the Old doesn't mean they think the Old is rubbish just not as good.
Niall
-
John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.
John
Re your basic premis that the Old Course is vastly superior to the other courses I think you will find plenty of locals who will tell you it's not even the best course there let alone vastly superior. Mind you those locals have the advantage of being local and therefore don't get overawed by the romance and history of the place every time they play.
Niall
Is it possible the locals don't enjoy the long rounds on the Old?
-
Bill
I think perhaps its the dour and unsentimental nature of a lot of Scots (hows that for a huge generalisation !) as I've suggested before, that and the "fact" that the other courses are very good golf courses such that there probably isn't as much of a gulf as suggested in the OP. BTW I'm not suggesting all locals or even the majority think the Jubilee or New are better but I've spoken to a fair few who do. By local I mean Scots in general as well as those that live or hail from St Andrews.
If St Andrews wasn't the home of golf and all the courses there were built about 120 years ago I think it would be a bit like Bandon where each course would have its proponents.
Niall
-
Niall,
is it not the case that each course at St.Andrews has its own character and is aimed at a particular standard of golf whilst being playable and enjoyable by all other standards? I think this is the beauty of the town and its courses. Top championship course through to a putting green. University filling the town with students which has many retirees as residents. It is diversity that make the place.
My questioning of Steve's way of thinking is that there is something wrong with having diversity instead of five times the same.
Jon
-
I'm not sure if its been specifically mentioned or not, but I think the course gets some of its "value" from the non-tangible things like its history, the players who have played there, its origins, its "hallowed ground-ness" for lack of a better phrase. You can take some of those holes like #1 and 18 and put them on another course and no one would be talking about them.
Without this, I suspect TOC would still be highly esteemed but perhaps not in the same top tier that it is now.
To some extent, I think ANGC also benefits from these non-tangibles as well as a membership where money is literally no object.
-
Please be clear: I'm not advocating or suggesting anything at all. I live in the US. Great to me is willingness to fly over the Atlantic to play. I would not be willing to fly by myself to spend a week just in St. Andrews to play any of the courses. People fly in from all over the world to play a sliver of a course between a white shell path. Outside the path lies massive amounts of golf. Personally, none of the golf holes are very memorable except the par 3 on the New along the water 225 yds or so. 7,11, and 16 are my tops at the Old. I remember liking the Jubilee but dont remember any holes. That being said, I don't remember any bad holes. I have not played the Eden.
-
I'm not sure how you could play the Eden and not remember the crossing par 3s. This is a thread entirely based on an incorrect premise.
-
I'm watching the GC coverage of golf in Scotland. From time to time, they show an aerial view of the golf courses. There are 5 courses adjacent to each other if I'm not correct?
My question is this: since the Old sits in the middle of a lot of golfing land and golf holes already in existence, what is the marginal effort required, if even possible, to improve the surrounding land or holes so they're comparable to those of the Old?
It seems odd to me that there are 90 odd holes and only a select 18 in the middle gets all the attention. Why is a golf course regarded so highly surrounded by such relative mediocrity?
My comments are not meant to be an attack on you in any way but rather to point out that most of the rankings are very narrow in what they judge. The other 78 odd holes that you label as mediocre fill a slightly different demand than the TOC and do so to a very high standard.
Jon
-
Niall
Local or not, to suggest The New (or is it the Joob?) is in the same league as TOC is far fetched.
Not really. Locals just aren't affected by the romance and history the same way visitors are and see it for what it is which is a very good golf course. That some of them, not all of them obviously, think the New or Jubilee or perhaps both are better than the Old doesn't mean they think the Old is rubbish just not as good.
Niall
Niall
I didn't suggest locals think TOC is rubbish. I only suggested that TOC is miles beyond the others in terms of interest and design. I like TNC just fine and think it has a handful of very good holes. TNC and certainly Joob are more difficult than TOC, but that doesn't mean much to me. Its more than merely the history of TOC which makes it a special course. It is unique while the others in town are much of a muchness with other courses.
Ciao
-
I suspect that if the green fees for the Old, New, Jubilee and Eden were the same and access wasn't an issue, the locals would play more golf on the Old and less on the New, Jubilee and Eden than they do today.
-
James
You might be right for some, and I dare say for others they would spend more time on the Jubilee, or New, or Eden depending on their preference. I don't think the Old is considered universally as the best, at least locally, contrary to what rankings and the vast majority on here might think, that's all I was saying.
Jon
To an extent the courses do perform different functions with the Old, New and Jubilee being the big boys courses with the rest being beginners or social style golf (that's my own perception and classification, feel free to disagree). Not sure they were necessarily designed that way though, at least at the outset. I tend to think of the Eden as being the smaller course (not sure how it compares to the others off the yellows) but I don't think that was the intention when it was built. The Jubilee might have started life as a short relief or ladies course but it was extended and redesigned to on more than one occasion to bring it up to championship spec.
Niall
-
Niall,
I cannot remember the brief for the Eden design but I do suspect it was to build a shorter course than the New and TOC. The Jubilee was designed to fulfil a perceived need and Strath was definitely seen as being for the beginner. However I digress. What my point is that the Jubilee, New and the present day Old are good championship courses but very Mediocre beginners courses. Steve's supposition is therefore reliant on judging all courses by a set standard where as to be fair to a course you need to judge it by how it fulfils it purpose.
Jon
-
Niall
Local or not, to suggest The New (or is it the Joob?) is in the same league as TOC is far fetched.
Not really. Locals just aren't affected by the romance and history the same way visitors are and see it for what it is which is a very good golf course. That some of them, not all of them obviously, think the New or Jubilee or perhaps both are better than the Old doesn't mean they think the Old is rubbish just not as good.
Niall
Niall
I didn't suggest locals think TOC is rubbish. I only suggested that TOC is miles beyond the others in terms of interest and design. I like TNC just fine and think it has a handful of very good holes. TNC and certainly Joob are more difficult than TOC, but that doesn't mean much to me. Its more than merely the history of TOC which makes it a special course. It is unique while the others in town are much of a muchness with other courses.
Ciao
Sean
Understood. I was clarifying my thoughts.
Niall
-
Nine on the New and 12 on TOC, two of the best golf holes on the planet. Saying that most of the holes on TOC are forgetful is nuts.